4 ms·

It feels like it's a too far away goal and too big goal. 2030 is the new 2020 where we push away dreams for the future, forget about them, try to do them at th

It feels like it's a too far away goal and too big goal. 2030 is the new 2020 where we push away dreams for the future, forget about them, try to do them at the last moment and miss the deadline. I think it would be better to have have smaller goals with a shorter timeframe.

zaphoyd 6y ago
Apple has been making and achieving smaller goals with shorter timeframes for a decade now. They committed to and acheived carbon neutrality for their first party operations already and are now incrementally pushing that out to their supply chain and product lifecycle. Based on past evidence this is not likely to be a set and forget arrangement for Apple.
rm999 6y ago
This feels different to me. Apple released a detailed, concrete ten year roadmap that other companies can follow - this already indicates serious commitment. There are enough in-flight initiatives that if carbon neutrality is deprioritized it will have to be an explicit decision from high-up in the company. Also, this is Apple we're talking about, not Google :P
- mav3rick 6y ago
  Google already beat Apple to it long time ago. So you're right this is Apple not Google.
Trufa 6y ago
This is such negative comment. I don't understand why this gets traction. I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups. And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this. I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative. Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.
- ekr 6y ago
  I don't think it's either negative or insulting. And it raises a good point. In 10 years' time lots of things could change that would make this "goal" irrelevant. Apple might be struggling to make ends meet 5 years down the line. I know that seems very unlikely for Apple right now, but imagine a company like Intel, add a big economic regression, trade wars with China (which for Apple is a big source of revenue) etc. But even just a few changes in the board of directors, or a change of CEO could see this target go out of the picture. Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.

zaphoyd 6y ago

Apple has been making and achieving smaller goals with shorter timeframes for a decade now. They committed to and acheived carbon neutrality for their first party operations already and are now incrementally pushing that out to their supply chain and product lifecycle. Based on past evidence this is not likely to be a set and forget arrangement for Apple.

rm999 6y ago

This feels different to me. Apple released a detailed, concrete ten year roadmap that other companies can follow - this already indicates serious commitment. There are enough in-flight initiatives that if carbon neutrality is deprioritized it will have to be an explicit decision from high-up in the company. Also, this is Apple we're talking about, not Google :P

mav3rick 6y ago
Google already beat Apple to it long time ago. So you're right this is Apple not Google.

Trufa 6y ago

This is such negative comment. I don't understand why this gets traction. I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups. And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this. I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative. Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.

ekr 6y ago
I don't think it's either negative or insulting. And it raises a good point. In 10 years' time lots of things could change that would make this "goal" irrelevant. Apple might be struggling to make ends meet 5 years down the line. I know that seems very unlikely for Apple right now, but imagine a company like Intel, add a big economic regression, trade wars with China (which for Apple is a big source of revenue) etc. But even just a few changes in the board of directors, or a change of CEO could see this target go out of the picture. Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.